Antarctic and Arctic gaining ICE.. Not Melting...

[Billy_Bob]

Polar Ice Caps More Stable Than Predicted, New Observations Show

Levi Winchester
THE North and South Poles are “not melting”, according to a leading global warming expert. In fact, the poles are “much more stable” than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought. For years, scientists have suggested that both poles are melting at an alarming rate because of warming temperatures – dangerously raising the Earth’s sea levels while threatening the homes of Arctic and Antarctic animals.

But the uncertainty surrounding climate change and the polar ice caps reached a new level this month when research suggested the ice in the Antarctic is actually growing.

And there could even be evidence to suggest the polar bear population is not under threat.

Well so much for the alarmist drivel. Even one of their own now admits IT ISNT HAPPENING!

The poles are not melting according to a global warming expert Dr Benny Peiser Nature News Daily Express
Source

 

[Autonomous Collective]

Just because they are “much more stable" than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought" doesn't necessarily mean they are not shrinking...

 

[Freewill]

So what if they do shrink? Whose to say what is the proper size? Opening trade routes through the arctic would be a very good thing.

 

[mamooth]

Well so much for the alarmist drivel. Even one of their own now admits IT ISNT HAPPENING!

The poles are not melting according to a global warming expert Dr Benny Peiser Nature News Daily Express
Source

Dr. Benny Peiser is a longtime paid denier shill with zero climate science experience. Only dishonest deniers have ever called him a "global warming expert".

 

[Freewill]

Well so much for the alarmist drivel. Even one of their own now admits IT ISNT HAPPENING!

The poles are not melting according to a global warming expert Dr Benny Peiser Nature News Daily Express
Source

Dr. Benny Peiser is a longtime paid denier shill with zero climate science experience. Only dishonest deniers have ever called him a "global warming expert".

Who is paying him, exactly?

 

[Freewill]

Here you all can go and see ice coverage and make your own informed decisions. I see no problem but then again I don't know when the coverage would be a problem.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

 

[mamooth]

Who is paying him, exactly?

The Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

 

[Freewill]

Who is paying him, exactly?

The Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Benny Peiser is the founder and editor (since 1997) of CCNet, the world’s leading climate policy network. Benny is a social scientist and a Visiting Fellow at the University of Buckingham. His research focuses on the effects of environmental change and catastrophic events on contemporary thought and societal evolution. A 10km-wide asteroid, Minor Planet (7107) Peiser, was named in his honour by the International Astronomical Union.

Who We Are The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPF

 

[Old Rocks]

Benny Peiser DeSmogBlog

Although Peiser has stated “I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact,” he also states that “… this majority consensus is far from unanimous,” and that “there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active.” [6]

Q50 Chairman: No, are they freely available, the data sets [used by the CRU]? How you model them and how you use them is entirely an issue for individual scientists, is it not?

Dr Peiser: Yes. What is not available, again, are some of the methodologies they arrive their conclusions at.

Q51 Ian Stewart: Dr Peiser, the question you were asked was: was that information available? We now hear from you that it is.
Dr Peiser: Yes.

Q52 Ian Stewart: Are you prepared to do your own modelling? Do you intend to use that data?
Dr Peiser: No, I am not in the climate modelling business. My concern is about availability of all the information that is important to replicate the conclusions, and that is the basis of this inquiry.

Interesting

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wow..... Adhominem attacks at the person and not one debate of the facts he presented.. yet the facts remain that there is much more ice than predicted, the rate of melt near zero and in some cases growth has been noted.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Just because they are “much more stable" than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought" doesn't necessarily mean they are not shrinking...

But the instability is what the alarmist have been crying about. Finding that they are stable removes the crybaby alarmist drivel. If you looked at the data many areas are growing very fast and the one which were shrinking have slowed the rate of melt to near zero. We are again increasing in ice content not only over the sea but in the glaciers as well.

 

[IanC]

over and over again, someone collects sparse data and makes up a model that projects catastrophe due to assumptions built into the models and not the actual data. and everytime one of those models gets a press release and media attention posters here like crick and old rocks go into paroxysms of frustration and anger that the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

we dont have enough data on either the Arctic or Antarctic sea ice to know what the normal patterns are. the Arctic sea ice lost area since full time satellite data became available. other data show that in 1979 the sea ice there was at a high point and therefore likely to retreat. the warmists have no problem using 1979 in this case because it helps their case, both in Arctic sea ice or satellite global temps. if it was the opposite case I think we would quickly find 'reasons' to use other start dates or to 'adjust' the data.

a year or two ago, a paper came out about the loss of albedo in the Arctic, partially based on a, you guessed it, model. where are the papers on how Antarctic sea ice is increasing albedo? it is much simpler down there, and the effect itself is much stronger because the extra ice is at a latitude where the solar insolation is much stronger. where are the predictions of doom, that another Little Ice Age is just around the corner if this pattern keeps up?

 

[Crick]

The radiative imbalance at the ToA is not model data. It says the world is accumulating heat.

Since data has become available, it shows the Arctic is losing ice. The mass loss trend indicates an ice free summer in no more than 10 to 20 years from now. Humans have never seen the Arctic ice-free. These are not models, they are facts.

As the Arctic has lost ice, it has also lost albedo - a positive feed back. That is not an assumption built into a model, it's a fact.

The rate of mass loss in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has increased multifold, enough to start raising sea level. That is not a model, that's a fact.

The WAIS is crumbling into the sea. It cannot stop and when complete will have raised the ocean many meters. That is not a model, that's a fact.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just because they are “much more stable" than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought" doesn't necessarily mean they are not shrinking...

Are you retarded

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When the facts fail to validate the crazed AGWCult models it can only mean the facts, even the Earth itself, is a DENIER!!! paid by the Koch Brothers.

 

[IanC]

The radiative imbalance at the ToA is not model data. It says the world is accumulating heat.

Since data has become available, it shows the Arctic is losing ice. The mass loss trend indicates an ice free summer in no more than 10 to 20 years from now. Humans have never seen the Arctic ice-free. These are not models, they are facts.

As the Arctic has lost ice, it has also lost albedo - a positive feed back. That is not an assumption built into a model, it's a fact.

The rate of mass loss in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has increased multifold, enough to start raising sea level. That is not a model, that's a fact.

The WAIS is crumbling into the sea. It cannot stop and when complete will have raised the ocean many meters. That is not a model, that's a fact.

the TOA radiative imbalance quite large when you measure the incoming and outgoing radiation. it is tuned to the difference that Hansen expected rather than the measured amount. in the past I have given you links to this, in Hansen's own words, and yet you behave like Old rocks by ignoring the evidence and then happily repeating the same erroneous statement the next time you feel like it.

the mass loss rate of the Antarctic icesheet is unknown. it is not even known if it is positive or negative. satellite altimetry involves much complex calculations and assumptions. the original estimates were much higher but have been steadily decreasing as both the error rates and time ranges have improved.

the West Antarctica Ice Sheet may or may not be collapsing. if it is, then it has been in that state for centuries, and it is certainly not AGW that is causing it.

 

[Freewill]

The radiative imbalance at the ToA is not model data. It says the world is accumulating heat.

Since data has become available, it shows the Arctic is losing ice. The mass loss trend indicates an ice free summer in no more than 10 to 20 years from now. Humans have never seen the Arctic ice-free. These are not models, they are facts.

As the Arctic has lost ice, it has also lost albedo - a positive feed back. That is not an assumption built into a model, it's a fact.

The rate of mass loss in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has increased multifold, enough to start raising sea level. That is not a model, that's a fact.

The WAIS is crumbling into the sea. It cannot stop and when complete will have raised the ocean many meters. That is not a model, that's a fact.

Here is a site with real facts: Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Ian, links to real scientists articles supporting what you have stated, from real peer reviewed journals, not yellow rags like WUWT.

 

[bodecea]

Polar Ice Caps More Stable Than Predicted, New Observations Show

Levi Winchester
THE North and South Poles are “not melting”, according to a leading global warming expert. In fact, the poles are “much more stable” than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought. For years, scientists have suggested that both poles are melting at an alarming rate because of warming temperatures – dangerously raising the Earth’s sea levels while threatening the homes of Arctic and Antarctic animals.

But the uncertainty surrounding climate change and the polar ice caps reached a new level this month when research suggested the ice in the Antarctic is actually growing.

And there could even be evidence to suggest the polar bear population is not under threat.

Well so much for the alarmist drivel. Even one of their own now admits IT ISNT HAPPENING!

The poles are not melting according to a global warming expert Dr Benny Peiser Nature News Daily Express
Source

First of all, one has to understand the difference between annual ice and permanent ice.